# California Banning Smoking in Car with a Minor



## Chas-cl (May 14, 2007)

According to Associated Press, California has just passed a law prohibiting smoking in an automobile in the presents of a minor. More


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok take it easy on the Govenator, he's still the man, what Govenor does anyone know that had a cigar room put in the capitol? NONE...!!!!


----------



## marccote (Sep 29, 2007)

*i would have to agree*



Chas said:


> According to Associated Press, California has just passed a law prohibiting smoking in an automobile in the presents of a minor. More


Sorry I would have to agree, smoking in the car with children is got to be one of the lowest things a parent could do to a child, including smoking in a house with them present, children have enough to worry about growing up in this world then their parents choking the shit out of them with smoke.

Father of 4 and I smoke outside the house and not in the car with the kids only smoke in my own truck which the kids do not ride in at all.


----------



## marccote (Sep 29, 2007)

*should be a felony too*

:errrr: 
anybody stupid enough to let their child inhale second hand smoke should spend some time some where they could be abused for about 18 years by bubba .
how stupid are people nowadays :nerd:


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

I have to agree with you brother. Any adult that is completely stupid enough to smoke in a car (small closed enviotment) should not only get a fine but have his or her backside kicked properly......


----------



## happy1 (Jun 29, 2007)

marccote said:


> Sorry I would have to agree, smoking in the car with children is got to be one of the lowest things a parent could do to a child, including smoking in a house with them present, children have enough to worry about growing up in this world then their parents choking the shit out of them with smoke.
> 
> Father of 4 and I smoke outside the house and not in the car with the kids only smoke in my own truck which the kids do not ride in at all.


the government should/does not have the right to tell you what to do in/on/around private property,It starts there and snowballs on till we are all a communist country


----------



## marccote (Sep 29, 2007)

*Not about private property about a human life*

there is not a place on earth that there are not laws, communist, socialistic, or democratic. They are to protect and serve all humans for and from each other, if there were no laws I could sit outside in my yard and make a toxic waste site, start a cocaine or meth lab, I could even start firing my 50 caliber wherever I choose, if you think that you have the right to harm children in any manner spite you even bringing them into this world ,, THIS LAW IS MADE FOR YOU,, and the harsher the penalty the better, it is bad enough that most children do not get the safety they deserve in this world, because of somebody claiming their rights are being violated, when it comes to harming children there is no such thing as your right to do so regardless if you own the world. Obvious it is the non parents that will oppose this law or those who are too stupid to realize you dont have a right to harm children regardless of whether you are the biological parent or not, there are way too many states that let child abuse go to far before they take it serious. I can tell you of one paticular child that comes home with cigarette burns on them. marks around their neck and elsewhere and all the state or police says is maybe the child should behave (WI). I personally believe that any crime against a child should be a felony at the least if not a capital offense. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO ABUSE A CHILD AND NOT ALLOWING THEM TO BREATH FREELY IS ABUSE. Glad to see California sees it that way and I hope other states follow suit, even make a federal law like they should for child abuse. And if you think you own private property well then try stop paying tax on it or not paying your registration fees on your car, see how far you last with your private property then and how much you can do with it.


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

I concur whole heartdley, i am even considering moving back to my beloved South, back to By God Alabama. I hate it out here, and i do not use that word all willy nilly. I can not stand the liberal aholes here, and where this state is headed. california is on the forefront of forcing it's inhabitants move eslewhere due to all these dunmbass laws these idiots are passing. I am one of those who are considering moving. 3,500 a month for a house note is insane........and that is in a bad neighborhood


----------



## GotaCohiba (Aug 20, 2007)

Ok Gents,

Being from Pageland,SC the world capital of red necks and white trash even I think that anyone smoking in a vehicle with a child deserves the death penalty.
Like it or hate it I don't give a damn that's my opinion!!!

*NUFF SAID!!!!*


----------



## acharpe (Feb 4, 2007)

Lot of passionate feelings on this topic. I must say that I am a little confused. There are quite a few things about the EPA's study on secondhand smoke that are dubious at best. A simple google of second hand smoke facts will tell you that. As I am not a scientist, I cannot pretend to be an expert on this matter. While many people have no issue with there being a law against smoking in a car with a minor, most people here bemoan the loss of their rights every day to be able to smoke indoors in public places. There is an inconsistency here. If you look at the following website: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

A study from the US Department of Health and Human Services is cited under item 6 which states:

# What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure (4).

If this is the case, wouldn't secondhand smoke be harmful in any public place (and not just a vehicle)? To truly protect our kids, shouldn't there be no opportunity for exposure to secondhand smoke? What is the level of harm that we are comfortable with?

I will be the first to agree that it is a horrible idea to smoke in a car with a minor. My parents did it and I'm sure there are others here that had it happen to them growing up. It was uncomfortable, but I was hardly "strangled." While I don't feel that people that are guilty of this should be executed or sodomized (I hope those were simply statements for hyperbole), I agree that laws should be on the books to protect others. I just feel that it is an extremely slippery slope with laws such as these that "protect the children." This is one of the reasons we've lost many of our smoking rights in the first place. In fact, the reason that the SCHIP cigar tax passed in Congress (and could still possibly override Bush's veto--call your Congressmen) is that SCHIP is there to "protect the children." I guess my question is where the line should be drawn.

PS: It's not just "liberal California" passing laws like this. They already exist in Maine and my home state of Louisiana.


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Brother California is like the ahole of the world as far as i am concerned when it comes to passing laws. No one that i know of has made a stand to protest these laws. No protests no loud voices. Me i smoke on BART Trains i smoke on buses, i smoke at bus stops, i smoke on train and muni platforms. There rights stops where my begin. California is just plain pitiful, i think i am the only republican out here or atleast the only one that acts like he's got a pair..

Respectfully,


----------



## marccote (Sep 29, 2007)

*Second hand smoke studies*

Do not read up on the studies, I am a little too smart to relaize that a study is a says all end of all, I do know that my couisn and my next door neighbor are both allergic to tobacco smoke, funny but it is only tobacco smoke as my neighbor is a fireman and was presented with firmena of the year award for crystalizing his helmet shield this year along with another firefighter who had saved a live in Rocky Point while vactioning off duty. Fact is that tobaco smoke is harmful and those who woudl rather not breathe it in shoudl have that opputunity, children do not have that right it seems by some idiot parents who think it si okay to smoke up the car with them in it, The law is listed as a secondary offense so they cannot pull you over for it but if you are pulled over and are smoking in the car you can get a $100 fine. Slap in the hand really, I do beleive in the safety of our kids as they are our future, SCHIP bill was an idiotic bill the way it was made, I have yet to meet a manufacturer or anyone that says that childrens helath coverage is a huge issue, just look at the new federal mandate to pull off all the over the counter under 2 years old cold medication, the probelm was the way the idiots thoought it could be funded. I listened to a gaving drunk at the RTDa about the bill and they had no idea what the bill meant other than to raise taxes on cigars, SCHIP is a must in this countyr, even Cuba has a helath program for underpriveleged children granted it si not much but it is something. Sometimes we cant see the benefits through all the smoke, No pun intended.


----------



## GotaCohiba (Aug 20, 2007)

*Republican*



mansonicman said:


> Brother California is like the ahole of the world as far as i am concerned when it comes to passing laws. No one that i know of has made a stand to protest these laws. No protests no loud voices. Me i smoke on BART Trains i smoke on buses, i smoke at bus stops, i smoke on train and muni platforms. There rights stops where my begin. California is just plain pitiful, i think i am the only republican out here or atleast the only one that acts like he's got a pair..
> 
> Respectfully,


*OMG a REPUBLICAN in CALIFORNIA what has the world come to?*

There are plenty of us REP's in SC


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap, We allrady have to many damm free programs. The children in our country are the most well taken care of children in the world. Even those without parents are taken care of better than most. Don't get me wrong i am not negating our childrens health care, i am simply stating they are the most well taken care of children in the world.

Respectfully,


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes Yes Yes I am republican and probably the only one that has a pair out here.


----------



## RGianelli (Jul 20, 2007)

GotaCohiba said:


> *OMG a REPUBLICAN in CALIFORNIA what has the world come to?*
> 
> There are plenty of us REP's in SC


Yeah..there are a few of us still here in California...


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Thank God another Republican


----------



## GotaCohiba (Aug 20, 2007)

mansonicman said:


> Thank God another Republican


*AMEN*:whoohoo:


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap, We allrady have to many damm free programs. The children in our country are the most well taken care of children in the world. Even those without parents are taken care of better than most. Don't get me wrong i am not negating our childrens health care, i am simply stating they are the most well taken care of children in the world.

Respectfully,


----------



## Skystorm82 (Sep 14, 2007)

mansonicman said:


> Thank God another Republican


Make that 3!!!


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Well what i want to do is a HERF on the Capital and get some much needed attention to our hobby. this is something i really want to plan 
" A HERF ON THE CAPITAL"


----------



## marccote (Sep 29, 2007)

mansonicman said:


> Crap Crap Crap Crap Crap, We allrady have to many damm free programs. The children in our country are the most well taken care of children in the world. Even those without parents are taken care of better than most. Don't get me wrong i am not negating our childrens health care, i am simply stating they are the most well taken care of children in the world.
> 
> Respectfully,


That would be Canada who has the best of health care for children, here is a littl info for you that think our children are well taken care of,

Among the 21 most affluent nations, the United States has the highest percentage of poor children. In fact, our rate is twice that of the country next in line.

http://heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm

Furthermore, the September 1996 welfare reform bill cut $60 billion in aid to poor families within a period of six years. It is estimated that this will throw one million more children into poverty. Sadly, even though we are the richest industrialized nation, we are the stingiest with aid to our own children.


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Still with all that crap, we still have the healthiest population on the planet


----------



## havanitascigars-cl (Apr 29, 2007)

marccote said:


> Sorry I would have to agree, smoking in the car with children is got to be one of the lowest things a parent could do to a child, including smoking in a house with them present, children have enough to worry about growing up in this world then their parents choking the shit out of them with smoke.
> 
> Father of 4 and I smoke outside the house and not in the car with the kids only smoke in my own truck which the kids do not ride in at all.


Not a single study proves SHS is harmful by any standard that is used for other drugs. In fact, the studies on children raised in homes of smokers actually shows a protective effect as children from such homes have a lower incidence of lung disease than those raised in the general population. Read my post on SHS here:

http://www.cigarlive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7238

These are the pure facts of research on SHS. Fact is, the results of the study used to lobby for smoking regulations was doctored to fix a preconceived opinion. If you choose to not smoke around your children, then that is your decision... similar to choosing to eat fatty foods or drink alcohol around them.


----------



## havanitascigars-cl (Apr 29, 2007)

marccote said:


> I listened to a gaving drunk at the RTDa about the bill and they had no idea what the bill meant other than to raise taxes on cigars, SCHIP is a must in this countyr, even Cuba has a helath program for underpriveleged children granted it si not much but it is something. Sometimes we cant see the benefits through all the smoke, No pun intended.


The failure of the bill did not end SCHIP. It is still funded and available as it have been. What the failure of the bill did do was not allow it to be expanded beyond the current coverage. It does nto allow a family of 4 with an income of $80,000 per year to recieve coverage as the new upper limit.

One note to consider: The tobacco tax funding required under the SCHIP bill would require 22 million new smokers per year. If these new smokers did not materialize, then the program would not be funded by tobacco taxes and would have to receive funding from other sources. So how serious is the government about protecting people when the laws enacted to deter smoking actually require more people to start smoking?


----------



## marccote (Sep 29, 2007)

havanitascigars said:


> Not a single study proves SHS is harmful by any standard that is used for other drugs. In fact, the studies on children raised in homes of smokers actually shows a protective effect as children from such homes have a lower incidence of lung disease than those raised in the general population. Read my post on SHS here:
> 
> http://www.cigarlive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7238
> 
> These are the pure facts of research on SHS. Fact is, the results of the study used to lobby for smoking regulations was doctored to fix a preconceived opinion. If you choose to not smoke around your children, then that is your decision... similar to choosing to eat fatty foods or drink alcohol around them.


I find it hard to beleive that formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide are better for you than not.

"Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."
California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.

here are 15 different sources that would tend to differ with your 1 opinon,, 9 out of 10 idiots can't all be wrong

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet 
June 2007

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7
Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet.8
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13
New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14
The current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15
For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Sources:

1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005. 
2. Ibid. 
3. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06 
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005. 
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program. 
6. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(8): 680-686. 
7. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238. 
8. American Lung Association. State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI). Available at: http://slati.lungusa.org/StateLegislateAction.asp Accessed on 6/18/07. 
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005. 
10. Ibid. 
11. Ibid. 
12. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100. 
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003 
14. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004 
15. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06


----------



## marccote (Sep 29, 2007)

havanitascigars said:


> The failure of the bill did not end SCHIP. It is still funded and available as it have been. What the failure of the bill did do was not allow it to be expanded beyond the current coverage. It does nto allow a family of 4 with an income of $80,000 per year to recieve coverage as the new upper limit.
> 
> One note to consider: The tobacco tax funding required under the SCHIP bill would require 22 million new smokers per year. If these new smokers did not materialize, then the program would not be funded by tobacco taxes and would have to receive funding from other sources. So how serious is the government about protecting people when the laws enacted to deter smoking actually require more people to start smoking?


Good point, I have a family of 4 and income fo $68,000 per year and we still paid out $14,000 in health care this year already and that is not counting insurance costs, I think what SCHIP and other's are trying to instill on us is that health care is getting out of hand both the financial end of it and the fact it takes between 15 and 90 days to see a specialist sometimes, and problems such as that, I know I have a child with Aspergers and the other has chronic middle ear problems (no he is not exposed to second hand smoke) they beleive it is a combination of the quality of the air in which we live (Phoenix) and the climate, dry and hot, then cold and dry. We also tend to have mold spores that are more dangerous, such as the ones that cause Valley Fever, which I have. I personally would like to see government get involved with health care but there are a lot of politiicians who depend on their political finances from pharmacutical companies, you know the one sthat make a pill that will cure your problem, but have side effects such as headache, nausea, and about 10 others worse than the problem itself. I don't ever think anybody is smart enough in politics to ever stand up for what we really need instead of following the money train. Found out yeaterday one of the primary providers for my son no longer takes insurance, I had the same problem when I found somebody who could help with my sciatica, still waiting for that. Too many loopholes in insurance nowadays and most people don't realize or ignore the fact, that doctors don't really want to help you till they are rest assured they are going to get paid. Our government could help the health industry but they keep finding reason not to, such as we spent too much on saving freedom for Iraq. What I think this country needs is to start taking care of itself and the only way that is going to happen is if we get the right policies acted on by the right people in the next elections. Don't aks me any furhter than that but my wife works with one fo the biggest medical insurance firms in the country and I hear all the horror stories, health care does need to improve , somehow, will cigar taxes fix it probably not but I am sure they can find some money wagons somewhere, they always do when it comes election time. I hate to get started on politics, it runs in the family though. Teh democratic way, everybody can be right, but only till we vote.
So go smoke a San Cristobal Maestro and I feel better doing it when I don't have to even question am I harmign anyone.


----------



## havanitascigars-cl (Apr 29, 2007)

The facts in my posting on SHS come from the EPA report itself. Their conclusions that SHS is harmful were only obtained after they changed the criteria of the statistical relevance. 

The sources you delineated all used the EPA study and findings to support their theses. There are not even 15 sources in your line up. Several are the same report. In effect, I am using the same research you are in order to support my argument, but I am looking at the research methodology and finding the flaws in the logic. You cannot announce the results of research before the research is conducted. Also, you cannot change the variables to differ from scientific/medical standards because the results did not fit your pre-announced conclusion. Also, the EPA study threw out any research that did not support their claim. That is faulty research and logic.

The EPA report you quote repeatedly in your sources was even vacated in court as being fraudulent. 

There are several products with higher instances of cancer than SHS, but the EPA has not put Class A carcinogen status on them. Why not?

Your point of absenteeism among former smokers declining is not an argument of the problem of SHS. It is an argument to quit smoking. Also, productivity is a tricky thing to measure. General Electric claims productivity has increased for their corporation due to mechanization and outsourcing. 

Please follow the link provided and read the posting I put up again. This is all clearly explained.


----------



## Shelby07 (May 1, 2007)

The biggest health problem for our children by far in this country is their diet and lack of exercise. So, let's keep them smoke free while we drive their fat little asses to school where they get gov't subsidized McDonald happy meals and drive them to Burger King after school for some more.

...rediculous!


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Sir i agree completely, it could not have been put any better?


----------



## Shelby07 (May 1, 2007)

...and along the same lines...

before you start comparing the health of our children to those in other countries, realize that the availability of trans fats in food is much lower in every other country than here in the US. In fact, it is outlawed in Europe.

Studies have linked a definite predictable impact on our children's health as related to their diets. There are no such studies of a definite impact when it comes to second hand smoke, only questionable suggestions of an increased risk, which, even if true, does not guarantee the same definite outcome as diet and lack of exercise.


----------



## havanitascigars-cl (Apr 29, 2007)

Very good points Shelby. I do not smoke around my child, not because I am worried about SHS because I have done my research. I do not smoke around him because smoking is an adult activity and I feel he should be an adult to make the decision to smoke or not. I take personal responsibility for my actions and do not ask the nanny government to legislate my conscience.

BTW: My son eats healthy and exercises every day.


----------



## jbock-cl (Sep 15, 2007)

I walk in to a casino in Nevada and after a few minutes notice a feeling on congestion. Studies say secondhand is harmful. Other studies say it is not.

Why would anyone want to take the risk. As far as those who believe this issue to be a removal of rights...NO ONE has the right to cause harm, or potential harm to a child. If you think arguing YOUR rights over THEIR rights to a healthy a safe upbringing is going to deter my support of this legislation, you are sorely mistaken. 

This has nothing to do with republican, or democrat and everything thing to do with healthy children and inconsiderate adults.


----------



## mansonicman (Sep 12, 2007)

Well one could argue that is you do not like second hand smoke, go somewhere else, or vice versa. Bottom line is i am going to smoke where i want when i want regardless.Non smoekrs rights stop where mine begin. Accept in a car with children, parents who do that do not need children.


----------

